jury applied the challenged instruction in California

2026Attorneys are contacted and a response is formulated.” There is no transcript of the discussion between counsel and the court regarding Jury Note No. 6. 59 appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 .) “We of course presume ‘that jurors understand and follow the court’s instructions.’ ” (Ibid

2025(See People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758 , 804-805; People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 .) A. Standard of review “The legal adequacy of an instruction is reviewed independently.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 80

2026(See People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 321 [where there is evidence of more instances of criminal conduct than are charged in a particular time period, the jury’s “difficulty in differentiating between the various acts should not preclude a conviction of the . . . counts charged, so long as there is no possibility of jury disagreement regarding the defendant’s commission of any of these acts”].) We review the adequacy of jury instructions de novo and ask “whether ‘there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’” (People v. Hajek &

2025II ANALYSIS Estrada argues the unanimity instruction was erroneous and misleading “because it told the jury that finding ‘at least one’ of the charges proven supported returning guilty verdicts on all charges, as long as the jury agreed which count was proven.” As such, he argues, the instruction invited the jury to resolve “the entire group of 22 charges” by deciding that one charged act occurred provided they agreed “ ‘which act’ of the 22 charges was proven.” We review the adequacy of jury instructions de novo and ask “whether ‘there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challeng

2025Under the more stringent Chapman standard, which applies to errors of constitutional dimension, reversal is required unless the reviewing court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. ( Chapman, supra, at p. 24 .) Under the alternative Watson standard, which applies to errors of state law, reversal is not required unless it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had the error not occurred. ( Watson, supra, at p. 836 .) “‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the

2023Standard of Review “We review de novo whether jury instructions state the law correctly.” (People v. Jackson (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 918, 923 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 677 .) “ ‘[W]e presume the jury understood and followed the court’s instructions.’ ” (People v.

2022“When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 .) “The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) The Attorney General argues that the inclusion of these tw

2020(Gomez, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 313 [“ ‘ “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” ’ ”]); People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 [“The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury”].) decoyed; and the fifth element is that defendant did not act

2020Standard of Review and Legal Background “The independent or de novo standard of review is applicable in assessing whether instructions correctly state the law.” (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) In this context, “the relevant inquiry is whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violated the Constitution. [Citations.] ‘“‘[W]e must assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ [Citation.]” [Citations.]’” (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 83

2015(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) "In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the ultimate question is whether 'there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.' " (People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1220 (Hajek); see generally People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).)9 " '[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.' " ( Hajek, supra, at p. 1220 .) " '[W]e must as

2025(See People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758 , 804-805; People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 .) A. Standard of review “The legal adequacy of an instruction is reviewed independently.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 80

2021(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 ; see People v. Jablonski (2006) 20 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 .) “We of course presume ‘that jurors understand and follow the court’s instructions.’ ” (Wilson, at p. 803.) Regarding self-defense, “CAL

2022Standard of Review “Errors in jury instructions are questions of law, which we review de novo.” (People v. Russell (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1424 ; People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 569 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 677 ; People v. Paysinger (2009) 174 Cal.

2022(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an 21 impermissible manner. [Citations.]’” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 677 ; see also People v. Paysinger (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 26, 30 .) A single instruction may not be viewed in “‘artificial isolation,’” but in the context of the entire record.

2024(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 ; People v. Ramos, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 1088 .) When addressing a claim of jury misinstruction, we must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.

2023(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 ; People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733 .) “ ‘ “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 905 .) A reviewing court reads the instructions as a whole to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.

2025Under the more stringent Chapman standard, which applies to errors of constitutional dimension, reversal is required unless the reviewing court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. ( Chapman, supra, at p. 24 .) Under the alternative Watson standard, which applies to errors of state law, reversal is not required unless it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had the error not occurred. ( Watson, supra, at p. 836 .) “‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the

2023Standard of Review “We review de novo whether jury instructions state the law correctly.” (People v. Jackson (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 918, 923 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 677 .) “ ‘[W]e presume the jury understood and followed the court’s instructions.’ ” (People v.

2024(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 ; People v. Ramos, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 1088 .) When addressing a claim of jury misinstruction, we must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.

2023(People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) We ask whether there was a reasonable 3 likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violated that constitution or state law.

2016(Estelle, supra 502 U.S. at p. 72 ; People v. Avila (2014) 59 Cal.4th 496, 508 [ 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 718 , 327 P.3d 821 ].) In addition, “ ‘ “we must assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” [Citation.]’ (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 , 183 P.3d 1146 ].)” (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1321 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 , 254 P.3d 249 ].) Preliminarily, if defendant did not believe the instruction given was adequate to cover this subject, then he was required to seek

2016(People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 149 ; People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 289 ; Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72-73 & fn. 4.) In determining that reasonable likelihood, we review the instructions as a whole and the entire record, including arguments of counsel.

2025Under the more stringent Chapman standard, which applies to errors of constitutional dimension, reversal is required unless the reviewing court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. ( Chapman, supra, at p. 24 .) Under the alternative Watson standard, which applies to errors of state law, reversal is not required unless it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had the error not occurred. ( Watson, supra, at p. 836 .) “‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the

2023Standard of Review “We review de novo whether jury instructions state the law correctly.” (People v. Jackson (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 918, 923 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 677 .) “ ‘[W]e presume the jury understood and followed the court’s instructions.’ ” (People v.

2025We disagree. “ ‘A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.’ ” (People v. Ramirez (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 175 , 218.) “ ‘ “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” ’ ” (People v

2020(Gomez, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 313 [“ ‘ “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” ’ ”]); People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 [“The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury”].) decoyed; and the fifth element is that defendant did not act

2015(People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 717 ; see People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 138 .) But when reviewing a claim of jury misinstruction, we assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.

2014(People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 201 ; People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 409-410 ; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 717 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner. [Citations.]” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803-804 .) “‘Under established law, instructional error relieving the prosecution of the

2015(Ibid.) Moreover, “We credit jurors with . . . common sense [citation] and do not assume that [this] virtue[] will abandon them when presented with a court’s instructions.” (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 594 .) The ultimate question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.

2015(Ibid.) Moreover, “We credit jurors with . . . common sense [citation] and do not assume that [this] virtue[] will abandon them when presented with a court’s instructions.” (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 594 .) The ultimate question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.

2022(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 ; see also People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 .) We also consider the entire trial record, including the arguments of counsel, in assessing the probable effect of a jury instruction.

2020(People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 .) Jury instructions are not considered in isolation, but rather in the context of the entire charge and the arguments of the parties.

2021There is no dispute here that some of the charged offenses (such as rape and oral copulation), qualified as sexual offenses, while some (such as kidnapping) did not. 40 whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229 .) We “‘assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067 , 1148-1149, overruled on another ground in People v. Rund

2014(People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 901 .) “[W]e view the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229 (Houston); see People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 192 [“‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.’ [Citations.]”].) “A defendant challe